How does Google's business rely on spying? By delivering advertisements based on what you search for?

How would I know. Windows Phone 7 is a day late and a dollar short. Is it even out yet? Does it have a hardware ctrl-alt-delete button?

Nobody said Microsoft was dying. But as a consumer brand that people want, yes, I see signs it is dying.

Yawn. I'm sure the iOS uses some internal components. Maybe the Mach-based microkernel. Who knows.

Android is based on Linux. Does it act and feel like Linux?

Microsoft is leveraging too much from desktop OSs for their tablet products (like HP Slate). The HP Slate even has a hardware ctrl-alt-delete button!!

And yet the State of California has the largest economy in the United States, and what, the 8th largest economy in the world compared to countries?

Um, Google measured it using some pretty fancy tools.

As someone who was recently doing large-format photography with vintage Graflex photographic equipment, I was wondering why the eBay prices for vintage Graflex flash accessories seemed so high! Arghh....Star Wars Nerds!!

All I can say is Wow...job well done Apple. The iPhone was definitely the most ubiquitous smartphone I spotted throughout France.

LMAO. Talk to me when all of this "will have" stuff is complete. Don't doubt what the world's largest economy can accomplish if it decides to prioritize something (yeah, I know...China "will" overtake the U.S. by some year I'm sure you can throw out).

So I'll ask again. Are you criticizing AGW/Climate Change by saying that it cannot be proven?

I am criticizing the frequent rhetoric where people assume AGW is scientific fact. I am criticizing what I perceive as some "group think" amongst the academic climate change community. I spent the last 7 years in a PhD program and am quite familiar with the "group think" aspects of academia. Circle the wagons and shoot outwards.

What are you driving at when you say you can't prove AGW? That complaint is usually followed by "you can't _scientifically prove_ it therefore we shouldn't do anything about it".

Actually my view is that society should apply some actuary science here (i.e., risk management). GW is happening whether we like it or not, thus a fair amount of money should be spent on researching/improving our ability to adapt. AGW may or may not be happening, and it may be irreversible if it is. Nonetheless, there exists some non-zero probability that AGW is indeed happening and that it is reversible with modest or drastic worldwide action. Thus I absolutely believe we should be purchasing some modest insurance policies (modest meaning 1-3% of global GDPs). What I find unrealistic is calling for such drastic change, given the uncertainties involved, that global economies and balances would rapidly shift.

As an example, I believe the risks of AGW probably outweigh the risks of nuclear power generation (which could *substantially* reduce CO2 emissions).

I personally do not believe you have any understanding of the scientific method. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published? Because I've got over a dozen.

What I am referring to is "scientific fact". A scientific fact can be verified with a controlled experiment. As quoted in wikipedia (which obviously should not be taken as factual): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

"Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome."

Facts can also be observations that are used to support theories. The Theory of Evolution itself will always be a theory. The individual observations themselves are facts.

It is not possible to perform controlled experiments to prove AGW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".

It is not possible to perform controlled experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments You can only perform "natural" or "quasi-experiments".

How can you completely prove AGW using the scientific method? You can't stick the earth in a test tube. You cannot perform repeatable experiments with controlled variables. Thus you can only prove sub-components of AGW that may support the *theory* of AGW.

The scientific method cannot prove AGW since you can't stick the Earth in a test tube. You can only prove/disprove sub-components that may support the *theory* of AGW.